What type of argument is displayed when a politician changes their stance according to public opinion?

The correct answer highlights a situation where a politician shifts their position in response to public sentiment, which reflects a lack of consistent reasoning or principle. Inconsequent arguments often arise when a conclusion is reached that is not logically supported by the premises. In this context, the politician's changing stance demonstrates a nondescript adherence to public opinion rather than a steadfast ideological position or factual integrity. The inconsistency between their original viewpoint and the new position reflects a disregard for logical coherence and the underlying arguments that would have originally justified their stance.

This behavior is indicative of a tactic that prioritizes appeal over consistent methodology, aligning more with emotional manipulation or populism than with rational debate. While other choices like Ad Hominem or Diversion also relate to argumentative fallacies, they do not directly capture the essence of altering one's position based on fluctuating public opinion, whereas the concept of an inconsequent argument precisely encapsulates that disconnect.